The only evidence Bicon cites in support of its contention that its licensewas exclusive is the testimony of its president, Dr. Vincent Morgan. Dr. Morgantestified that Bicon’s right to practice the patent was "exclusive at themoment," but he promptly explained that Bicon’s right to practice the patent was"exclusive" only in the sense that Bicon was the only licensee of the Diropatent at the time ("[I]t’s exclusive because Bicon is the only one doing itright now."). He added that he was aware of nothing that would prevent Diro"from licensing [the patent] to someone else under appropriate circumstances."We conclude that Bicon failed to proffer any evidence that Bicon was anexclusive licensee with the right to exclude other prospective licensees and inthat capacity had standing to bring suit for infringement of the ’731 patent. Wetherefore uphold the district court’s ruling on the standing issue.